There is broad discussion also behind the scenes influenced by the regional diversity -- so I disagree with the statement that in effect says that because all vote alike doesn't matter if it's two or three. Ellen B. Shankman, Adv. Ellen Shankman & Associates 13 Weizmann Street Rehovot 76280 Israel tel: +972-54979026 fax: +972-89364241 e-mail:ellen@ellenshankman.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:05 AM To: council@dnso.org; Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au Subject: [council] 3 Council members or 2? While we are weighing in on the 3 members per constituency issue, I may as well make it clear that I and most NCUC members I have talked to prefer to remain with the current plan to have only two GNSO Council representatives per constituency. In part, this stems from NCUC's own unique situation, in which we have rarely been able to generate regular and informed participation by all three GNSO Council members. We look forward with relief to the prospect of only needing two members to devote so much time to GNSO Council activities. But we believe the argument applies equally well to the other constituencies, because we note that in almost all cases (the only exception typically being the NCUC, which is actually has the most diversified interests) all three representatives vote the same way. What, then, is the point of having three representatives? If I saw the AF or LAC-region members of the ISPCC, CBUC, IPCC, registrars or gTLD registries consistently voting differently from the NA or EU-region members, I would feel differently about this. But the record shows that invariably the commercial constituencies vote the same way regardless of what region they are from on every significant issue. --MM